Comments by "nozrep" (@nozrep) on "Stanford Fake Image Scandal - The Xerox Hypothesis" video.

  1. yes i agree it is totally plausible and possible. Nevertheless, I also posit that scientific fraudsters would quickly use it as another cover and another excuse, if they get caught. Because, well, humans are clever sometimes. So it is important in my view to catch the machine errors and also continue to hold the science frauds accountable, if they get caught, and not allow them to use a real mechanical ink copier issue or digital scanner issue as additional cover to their fraud. It is almost as it the complexity of the situation squares itself, or something.
    2
  2. Explain the importance of physical proofreading without explaining the importance of physical proofreading.😃
    1
  3. i am not saying if Sudhoff is a fraud or not. I have no idea who he is. I am, however, saying that he IS responsible for his work. Any of us are. How did he not proofread his science papers with a “finetooth comb” and not catch some of the discrepancies himself if indeed he is not a fraud?
    1
  4.  @marenjones6665 no link, but ummmm have you heard of the google search bar in which one can type words? i mean… you do appear to be capable of typing a comment.😏
    1